Putin: Russian State Has Never Been Involved in Hacking

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Vladimir Putin insisted Thursday that the Russian state has never engaged in hacking and scoffed at allegations that hackers could influence the outcome of elections in the United States or Europe.

But the Russian leader admitted the possibility that some individual “patriotic” hackers could have mounted some attacks amid the current cold spell in Russia’s relations with the West.

Speaking at a meeting with senior editors of leading international news agencies, Putin also alleged that some evidence pointing at Russian hackers’ participation in attacks — he didn’t specify which — could have been rigged in an attempt to smear Russia. (Read more from “Putin: Russian State Has Never Been Involved in Hacking” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Leak Reveals Strong Protections for Religious Ministries May Be Coming

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump is taking another step to protect freedom of conscience, if new rules leaked Wednesday come to pass.

The leak revealed only a draft version of the rules. But if adopted, ministries would be allowed to forgo providing contraception to employees. The White House refused any comment beyond calling the leak an “alleged draft.”

First Liberty Institute, a Texas-based law firm devoted exclusively to religious freedom cases, applauded the news. First Liberty says the new rules would end a near-three year legal battle for several of their clients. Many had sued the federal government in 2014. The suits challenged the HHS mandate embedded in Obamacare. The so-called “abortion pill mandate” or “contraception mandate” forced non-profits to provide birth control to their workers, regardless of religious and conscience objections.

The Little Sisters of the Poor is perhaps the best known ministry involved in the mandate battle. (The now-famous group of Catholic nuns was represented by the Becket Fund.) Last year the Supreme Court declined to rule in their case. Instead, it was sent back to lower courts that previously ruled against the Little Sisters. Some hailed the decision as a victory for religious freedom.

But the rules leaked Wednesday would offer a much more final victory for religious ministries — especially after President Trump’s religious liberty order was found lacking by many conservatives.

“The Trump administration has clearly announced its intent to adopt an important new policy for religious ministries across the country,” said Jeremy Dys, First Liberty Deputy General Counsel. “Our clients are delighted to see their religious liberty potentially restored and to be freed to pursue their mission without the threat of punishment by their government hanging over their heads.” (For more from the author of “Leak Reveals Strong Protections for Religious Ministries May Be Coming” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

City: You Can’t Sell Blueberries Unless You Affirm Gay Marriage

/0 Comments/in , , /by

. . .This year city officials told the devout Catholic family [Tennes family] that their blueberries and sweet corn were not welcome at the farmer’s market — and neither were they.

Last year, someone posted a message on Country Mill’s Facebook page inquiring about whether they hosted same-sex weddings at the farm. Tennes told the individual they did not permit same-sex marriages on the farm because of the family’s Catholic belief that marriage is a sacramental union between one man and one woman.

City officials later discovered the Facebook posting and began immediate action to remove Country Mill from the Farmer’s Market — alleging the family had violated the city’s discrimination ordinance.

“It was brought to our attention that The Country Mill’s general business practices do not comply with East Lansing’s Civil Rights ordinances and public policy against discrimination as set forth in Chapter 22 of the City Code and outlined in the 2017 Market Vendor Guidelines, as such, The Country Mill’s presence as a vendor his prohibited by the City’s Farmer’s Market Vendor Guidelines,” read a letter the city sent to the family.

It also did not seem to matter to city leaders that the farm is located 22 miles outside the city limits — and had absolutely nothing to do with the business of selling blueberries at the farmer’s market. (Read more from “City: You Can’t Sell Blueberries Unless You Affirm Gay Marriage” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary Blames America First

/0 Comments/in , /by

In one of the great scenes in American cinema, Jake Blues (John Belushi) of the Blues Brothers, explains — at gunpoint — to his ex-fiancee (Carrie Fischer) why he left her at the altar.

“I ran out of gas! I had a flat tire! I didn’t have enough money for cab fare! My tux didn’t come back from the cleaners! An old friend came in from out of town! Someone stole my car! There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn’t my fault! I swear to God.”

I kept thinking of that scene as I watched Hillary Clinton on Wednesday run through all of the reasons why she lost the 2016 presidential race.

At a conference hosted by Recode, Mrs. Clinton said, “I take responsibility for every decision I make — but that’s not why I lost.”

The real reasons for her defeat include, but are not limited to: FBI Director James Comey’s handling of the investigation into her email server, the institutional ineptitude of the DNC, Facebook, Macedonian “fake news” websites, real news (in the form of unfair coverage from the New York Times and other mainstream outlets), voter suppression in Wisconsin, low-information voters, the billionaire Mercer family and the deep-seated sexism of the American people. (Read more from “Hillary Blames America First” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Kathy Griffin Is Not the Only One Guilty of Anti-Trump Hysteria

/0 Comments/in , /by

Without a doubt, Kathy Griffin crossed a dark and ugly line when she posted her instantly infamous, beheading picture. And she’s suffering the consequences for her foolish actions. But is she alone to blame? Have not others contributed to the toxic atmosphere that provided the backdrop for her misdeed?

She alone is responsible for her decisions. And she took responsibility for those decisions in her apology. No one made her do what she did. No one pressured her or coerced her. She made a choice, and she’ll have to live with it.

But she’s not alone in terms of the unhealthy, anti-Trump hysteria that has rocked the nation. Without that hysterical backdrop, I don’t think she would have had the audacity to go as far as she did.

Culture of Hysteria

In January of this year, Madonna stirred up an anti-Trump women’s march, saying, “Yes, I’m angry. Yes, I’m outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House, but I know that this won’t change anything.”

And how did the women respond? With shock or with delight?

She said, “It took this horrific moment of darkness to wake us the f____ up.” And she led the women in chanting to the newly elected president, “I’m not your b­_____.”

Naturally, she had to walk back some of her comments. She said they were taken out of context, leading to ridiculous headlines like this on CNN: “Madonna: ‘Blowing up White House’ taken out of context.”

In reality, her comments only made sense in context, and it was a context that these angry women devoured with glee.

Just a few weeks before Madonna’s rant, Charlie Sheen tweeted out his prayer request that Trump be the next famous person to die in 2016: “Dear God; Trump next, please! Trump next, please! Trump next, please! Trump next, please! Trump next, please! Trump next, please!”

Kathy Griffin’s sin was to articulate what these other celebrities wished for and longed for. The murderous hatred was already there.

But it’s not just singers and actors and comedians who have stirred up anti-Trump hysteria in America. Politicians have done it too.

Naturally, their words are more measured than those of entertainers like Madonna and Charlie Sheen. But their constant talk of impeachment and their over the top criticisms of the president give the impression that there is a ticking bomb in the White House, ready to explode at any time. Put another way, Donald Trump is a real threat to our nation and the world.

To be sure, I agree with Sen. Ted Cruz that some of the president’s problems are self-inflicted. During the campaign, he made his own over-the-top statements, and he was hurt by very vulgar comments from his past. Since elected, every time he has behaved in an unpresidential manner, he has made himself a bigger target for his critics.

But none of that justifies the sustained political attack he is experiencing. We’re now at the point that Rep. Maxine Waters could even claim that the public is “getting weary” with the Democrats for not impeaching Trump.

And impeaching him for what? Having two scoops of ice cream at dinner while his guests only got one? Or is he worthy of impeachment because he has been accused of stealing the election from Hillary Clinton with the help of Russia? Since when do you impeach someone based on unsubstantiated accusations?

Weak Condemnations

Also contributing to the anti-Trump hysteria is the mainstream media with their incessant Trump-bashing. They excoriate him for virtually everything he says and does, always looking to finding fault, to embarrass, to hamstring him at every turn.

Watching some news reports, you get the feeling that there is almost an immature fixation on the president. Experienced news commentators suddenly sound like chattering children.

As for their reaction to the Kathy Griffin photo: While there was widespread media condemnation of her actions, in some circles, the criticism was muted.

For example, when Jake Tapper introduced the photo during a CNN panel discussion, he gave a warning to viewers, especially those with kids, saying, “You might find what we’re about to show you a little bit graphic …”

A little bit graphic? Really? Would he have introduced the picture the same way if it had been the severed, bloodied head of President Obama? Would CNN have even shown it?

He further described it as “pretty disgusting,” laughingly wondering how anyone would think it was appropriate. But again, would his tone have been the same had, say Tim Allen done to Obama what Kathy Griffin did to Trump?

But once the panel starting talking, things got worse — much worse. Molly Ball, a political writer with The Atlantic said she had a hard time even bringing herself to care about this. She claimed it was just another of Trump playing the always-persecuted, victim card.

As for Griffin’s actions, Ball said, “Of course, like, comedians and celebrities say dumb stuff and do dumb stuff. And, and violence is not appropriate. But I just don’t think that’s the source of President Trump’s problems.”

CNN contributor David Urban was then asked for his opinion. His response: “I think we’ve got much bigger issues to focus on than Kathy Griffin.”

Tapper then asked former White House communications director Jen Psaki for her view of the matter. She simply affirmed Urban’s assessment, saying, “Agreed.”

So, not only do major media outlets like CNN help fan the flames of anti-Trump hysteria, but they also engage in the worst kind of self-righteous hypocrisy. In this case, they downplayed the ugliness of a photo of the severed head of the president of the United States. No big deal! Just comedians being dumb. There are bigger fish to fry.

As for the image itself? It’s a “little big graphic” and “pretty disgusting.” Nothing more.

Needed: A Dose of Civility

In stark contrast, as pointed out by the Daily Wire’s John Nolte, CNN expressed outrage when a rodeo clown wore a Barack Obama mask during his act in 2013:

It should also be noted that in the past this same rodeo clown had worn a mask of presidents’ Reagan and Bush. Nevertheless, until he was properly banished from society and lost all hope of future employment, CNN pushed and pushed and pushed the story; toxified this poor guy as an example in never mocking The Precious.

Coming back to 2017, even though CNN released Griffin from her New Year’s Eve job, and even though Tapper and others have since weighed in with stronger condemnation of the photo, that initial panel discussion said it all. It reminded us that Griffin did not act in a vacuum.

For those on the left who would say, “Yeah, but the right-wing media savage President Obama,” I would agree. There’s hypocrisy on the right as well.

I would simply argue that the major players in right-wing media did not incite the same kind of anti-Obama hysteria that the left has against Trump (although I don’t justify the sins of the right any more than the sins of the left).

One More Key Player

There’s one more player that helped create the toxic platform for Griffin’s actions, but this one is somewhat nameless and faceless. It is made up of millions of people posting the most horrific comments on social media and composing the vilest graphics and videos. It is a savagery let loose by the internet. It makes some people think they can get away with feigned murder. Or even murder.

It’s time we take a deep breath, get a grip on our emotions, and ask ourselves what kind of world we want to bequeath to our children and grandchildren.

A little dose of civility, anyone? (For more from the author of “Kathy Griffin Is Not the Only One Guilty of Anti-Trump Hysteria” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Forget the Paris Accords: Climate Is Socially Constructed, Like Sex

/0 Comments/in , /by

The weeping and gnashing of teeth over President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Climate accords was deafening. I could barely hear my beagles baying at terrified skateboarders they were chasing down Commerce Street. Amidst the din, we did learn something. For instance, that Trump had rejected nothing less than “the future.” This from the Nobel Prize-winning former President Barack Obama, who really is, in Joe Biden’s words, “articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” You can’t take that away from him.

All the usual suspects are howling that Trump has chosen “corporate greed” and “profits” over “the planet,” “mother Earth,” and the hopes and dreams of our grandchildren. I fully expect Kathy Griffin to join Katy Perry for a round-the-world climate awareness/cannibalism fetish tour, on Elon Musk’s private jet. Don’t worry, they’ll pay for it by purchasing indulgences. That is, carbon credits. Lucky for them, Al Gore just responded to Trump’s decision by announcing a clearance sale.

Is Geology Destiny?

I’m genuinely puzzled over why progressives find Trump’s decision so frightening. Are they still trapped in the barren, patriarchal paradigm of scientific “objectivity”? Still mired in biological determinism? If so, climate science is the only field where they feel so constrained. Let me invite them to free their minds. It’s time to break loose from the dictates of a male-dominated field that is led by privileged, highly educated, cis-gendered whites. Feminism, queer theory and transgenderism point the way.

We have already learned from these pioneering intellectual movements a long list of surprising and hopeful facts:

Male and female aren’t biological realities. They are mere social constructs. We can divide and subdivide, combine and conflate them, even shift them at a moment’s notice.

Women can father children.

Men can breastfeed and menstruate.

Human life begins at the moment a pregnant mom posts her ultrasound on Facebook.

Heterosexuality isn’t the default sexual behavior that describes mammalian breeding. It’s an artificial model, just like “maleness,” designed to constrain us and narrow our choices.

Age isn’t a biological marker, but another mental artifact. Hence adult men can become six-year-old girls.

A species is not just arbitrary and discriminatory (see “speciesism”). It is outright imaginary. Just ask the academic who turned himself into a hippo.

Now I’ve been out ahead of all this. Ten years ago, in a college guide I edited, I responded to the first transgender dorm demands at the University of Chicago. I called for facilities honoring the preferences of transspecies students. For instance, if any student identified as a lion, I called on the university to build him a suitable habitat. There he could live naked and subsist on raw wildebeest. They didn’t listen. I hope they’ll listen now.

How Hot Does the Climate Identify as Being?

If transgender theory can set us free from all those arbitrary categories, why can’t it save the climate? The gross raw material of biological sex gives way to the wishes of individuals. Bruce Jenner was already female even before the surgeon was finished with him. Likewise, the global temperature can be whatever we want it to be. If we decide as a global community to identify as a planet with a lower temperature, who can judge us? What privileged male in a starched lab coat dares tell us that the average earth temperature isn’t 57 degrees Fahrenheit, or even 72 degrees everywhere, if that’s what we want it to be? Why can’t we, like Spinal Tap, produce an amplifier that goes to 11?

The societal consensus of educated opinion has already freed us from biology. Shouldn’t climatology be next?

Transclimatism Is the New Frontier of Sexual Freedom

Now I know there will be skeptics. Hidebound traditionalists and fundamentalists are always trying to lock us in a straight jacket. Some will say that the rest of the planet won’t recognize our decision, that animals and plants will react not to the real temperature (the one we’ve decided on, democratically). No they’ll doggedly go on responding to the phony, “objective” warmth or coolness they feel around them.

Saying that, of course, is just buying in to climate determinism. It’s like insisting that “maleness” is linked to penises. And that’s already illegal in New York City. Do you want our climate policy to be guided by hate criminals? I didn’t think so. That kind of cis-thermalism has no place in a free society.

It may be that the earth in fact does keep on warming, in some trivial “external” sense. In that case, we are not left powerless victims. The transgender movement has made enormous advances in helping reshape the stubborn flesh to match the psychological truth of gender identity.

We can do the same with the planet. There are vastly promising areas of geoengineering that science has left untried. Options range from enormous shade pods floating in orbit to reduce the amount of sunlight that hits the earth, to seeding the upper atmosphere with reflective dust, to reflect our real, identified climate.

If we can use the best in medical science to help transgender people’s bodies match their authentic gender identity, why not do the same for the earth? “Nature” is what we say it is. That’s true for human ecology, so why not for the planet? (For more from the author of “Forget the Paris Accords: Climate Is Socially Constructed, Like Sex” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

4 Reasons Trump Was Right to Pull out of the Paris Agreement

/0 Comments/in , , /by

President Donald Trump has fulfilled a key campaign pledge, announcing that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

The Paris Agreement, which committed the U.S. to drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, was a truly bad deal—bad for American taxpayers, American energy companies, and every single American who depends on affordable, reliable energy.

It was also bad for the countries that remain in the agreement. Here are four reasons Trump was right to withdraw.

1. The Paris Agreement was costly and ineffective.

The Paris Agreement is highly costly and would do close to nil to address climate change.

If carried out, the energy regulations agreed to in Paris by the Obama administration would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm American manufacturing, and destroy $2.5 trillion in gross domestic product by the year 2035.

In withdrawing from the agreement, Trump removed a massive barrier to achieving the 3 percent economic growth rates America is accustomed to.

Simply rolling back the Paris regulations isn’t enough. The Paris Agreement would have extended long beyond the Trump administration, so remaining in the agreement would have kept the U.S. subject to its terms.

Those terms require countries to update their commitments every five years to make them more ambitious, starting in 2020. Staying in the agreement would have prevented the U.S. from backsliding or even maintain the Obama administration’s initial commitment of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent.

The Obama administration made clear in its commitment that these cuts were only incremental, leading up to an eventual 80 percent cut in the future.

In terms of climate benefits produced by Paris, there are practically none.

Even if every country met its commitments—a big “if” considering China has already underreported its carbon dioxide emissions, and there are no repercussions for failing to meet the pledges—the changes in the earth’s temperature would be almost undetectable.

2. The agreement wasted taxpayer money.

In climate negotiations leading up to the Paris conference, participants called for a Green Climate Fund that would collect $100 billion per year by 2020.

The goal of this fund would be to subsidize green energy and pay for other climate adaptation and mitigation programs in poorer nations—and to get buy-in (literally) from those poorer nations for the final Paris Agreement.

The Obama administration ended up shipping $1 billion in taxpayer dollars to this fund without authorization from Congress.

Some of the top recipients of these government-funded climate programs have in the past been some of the most corrupt, which means corrupt governments collect the funds, not those who actually need it.

No amount of transparency negotiated in the Paris Agreement is going to change this.

Free enterprise, the rule of law, and private property are the key ingredients for prosperity. These are the principles that actually will help people in developing countries prepare for and cope with a changing climate and natural disasters, whether or not they are caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Withdrawal is a demonstration of leadership.

The media is making a big to-do about the fact that the only countries not participating in the Paris Agreement are Syria and Nicaragua.

But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a bad deal. Misery loves company, including North Korea and Iran, who are signatories of the deal.

Some have argued that it is an embarrassment for the U.S. to cede leadership on global warming to countries like China. But to draw a moral equivalency between the U.S. and China on this issue is absurd.

China has serious air quality issues (not from carbon dioxide), and Beijing has repeatedly falsified its coal consumption and air monitoring data, even as it participated in the Paris Agreement. There is no environmental comparison between the U.S. and China.

Other countries have a multitude of security, economic, and diplomatic reasons to work with America to address issues of mutual concern. Withdrawal from the agreement will not change that.

Certainly, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement will be met with consternation from foreign leaders, as was the case when the U.S. withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol.

However, it could very well help future negotiations if other governments know that the U.S. is willing and able to resist diplomatic pressure in order to protect American interests.

4. Withdrawal is good for American energy competitiveness.

Some proponents of the Paris Agreement are saying that withdrawing presents a missed opportunity for energy companies. Others are saying that it doesn’t matter what Trump does because the momentum of green energy is too strong.

Neither argument is a compelling case for remaining in the agreement.

Whether it is conventional fuel companies or renewable ones, the best way for American energy companies to be competitive is to be innovative and competitive in the marketplace, not build their business models around international agreements.

There is nothing about leaving the agreement that prevents Americans from continuing to invest in new energy technologies.

The market for energy is $6 trillion and projected to grow by a third by 2040. Roughly 1.3 billion people do not yet have access to electricity, let alone reliable, affordable energy.

That’s a big market incentive for the private sector to pursue the next energy technology without the aid of taxpayer money.

The U.S. federal government and the international community should stop using other peoples’ money to subsidize energy technologies and while regulating affordable, reliable energy sources out of existence.

The Paris Agreement was the open door for future U.S. administrations to regulate and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on international climate programs, just as the Obama administration did without any input from Congress.

Now, that door has thankfully been shut. (For more from the author of “4 Reasons Trump Was Right to Pull out of the Paris Agreement” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judicial Watch Sues State Department, USAID for Documents on Funding to Soros’ Foreign Campaigns

/0 Comments/in , /by

Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development for records on funding awarded to George Soros’ Open Society Foundation-Albania, the conservative nonprofit watchdog announced Wednesday.

The suit was filed May 26 after both government agencies failed to respond to Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act requests.

The requests sought records related to contracts, grants, and any other funding that the State Department and USAID awarded to the Foundation Open Society-Albania. The requests also sought communications between the agencies and the foundation.

“This is our second FOIA lawsuit to uncover the truth about the scandal of Obama administration’s siphoning tax dollars to the Soros operations in Europe,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “We hope and expect the Trump administration to finally let the sunlight in on this growing controversy.”

Six Republican senators sent a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson requesting that he investigate the relationship between USAID and the Soros foundations. The senators claim that the federal funds the Open Society Foundations has received have allowed the group to advocate progressive agendas in Macedonia and Albania. (Read more from “Judicial Watch Sues State Department, USAID for Documents on Funding to Soros’ Foreign Campaigns” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

March for Life Wants Justice Department to Investigate Planned Parenthood

/0 Comments/in , /by

The March for Life, along with over a dozen other organizations, signed a letter released Tuesday asking Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI acting Director Andrew McCabe to investigate Planned Parenthood’s involvement in the selling of fetal tissue.

“We, the undersigned representing millions of Americans, strongly support an investigation into paid fetal tissue transfers involving Planned Parenthood,” the signers write.

The letter is prompted by the work of David Daleiden, an investigative journalist who founded the Center for Medical Progress, a nonprofit organization of “citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances.”

As part of his work, “Daleiden recorded doctors, executives, and staff-level employees discussing various aspects of the fetal tissue procurement industry,” the signers write.

Daleiden and a contractor hired by Center for Medical Progress, Sandra Merritt, are currently facing criminal charges in California over their undercover video work. Daleiden called the charges “bogus.”

Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, told The Daily Signal in an interview Thursday that pro-life organizations want justice to be served.

“Essentially, we’re asking the administration to take it up in its proper format, so it should have been looked at through the Justice Department in the Obama administration,” Mancini said. “Of course, that never happened, so we’re asking the Trump administration to rightly take up this in the Department of Justice.”

The letter comes days after the May 24 release of a video from the Center for Medical Progress that shows footage from the conventions of the National Abortion Federation in 2014 and 2015.

“An eyeball just fell down into my lap, and that is gross,” Dr. Uta Landy, Planned Parenthood Federation of America Consortium of Abortion Providers founder, said during a panel discussion at a National Abortion Federation convention.

Deb VanDerhei, national director for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America America Consortium of Abortion Providers, directly addressed revenues.

“But the truth is, that some might want to do it for, to increase their revenues,” VanDerhei said. “And we can’t stop them.”

The Center for Medical Progress has released multiple videos taken by undercover journalists showing Planned Parenthood employees discussing the selling of fetal tissue.

A video released in April by the Center for Medical Progress shows Dr. Mary Gatter, Planned Parenthood Foundation of America’s Medical Directors’ Council president, speaking about the price of fetal tissue.

“Yeah, $50’s on the low end, $50 [per specimen] was like 12 years ago,” Gatter said.

The last Congress, the letter said, investigated Planned Parenthood’s involvement in the selling of fetal tissue.

“The 114th Congress responded to the videos by holding hearings and initiating investigations that culminated in the House of Representatives creating the Select Panel on Infant Lives to further investigate the matter,” the letter reads.

The letter states that the panel “found evidence of violations of laws protecting human research subjects and patient privacy; laws regulating anatomical gifts for transplantation, therapy, research, and education; laws protecting late-term and born-alive infants; and laws pertaining to public funding for fetal tissue research and abortion providers.”

The panel, according to the letter, “made 15 criminal and regulatory referrals of tissue procurement companies and abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood affiliates, and investigations are underway around the nation.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee, which investigated the selling of fetal tissue, made seven criminal referrals to the Department of Justice, according to the letter.

Planned Parenthood did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment. Previously the organization has pushed back against Daleiden’s coverage.

“The videos generated by the discredited ‘Center for Medical Progress’ are a fraud aimed at single purpose: to end women’s access to reproductive health care, including medically safe and legal abortion, and to damage Planned Parenthood,” Planned Parenthood said in a statement last year.

The signers of the letter wrote that President Barack Obama’s administration “decided to turn a blind eye to the wrongdoing,” and are asking the Department of Justice to “continue the investigation into the practices surrounding this scandal.”

David Christensen, vice president of government affairs at the Family Research Council, a conservative policy organization, told The Daily Signal Thursday this request to the Department of Justice should be heeded.

“It was really important to see the Obama administration put its incredible support for Planned Parenthood and abortion rights over and above the law and justice,” Christensen said. “President [Donald] Trump has spoken strongly in favor of life and…we would like to see the Department of Justice follow up by appraising the law.”

This article has been modified since publication. (For more from the author of “March for Life Wants Justice Department to Investigate Planned Parenthood” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Wasserman Schultz Admits Hill IT Security Violations, Blames House Administrators for Not Stopping Her

/0 Comments/in , /by

Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose office equipment U.S. Capitol Police seized in a criminal investigation into congressional network security violations, admitted she violated official information security policy and blamed the House’s chief administrative officer for not stopping her.

In a May 17 appropriations hearing on Congress’ administrative budget, Wasserman Shultz said she had violated the policies “for years and years and years.” She also sought to find out how much House authorities might know about her internet usage, asking, “Are members monitored?”

Police are investigating Wasserman Schultz’s longtime information technology aide, Imran Awan, for theft and funneling congressional data from members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee on Homeland Security, and Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Yet Wasserman Schultz lashed out at investigators and changed Awan’s title to “adviser” instead of firing him after House authorities banned him from the network. She resigned as Democratic National Committee chairman in July 2016 after unidentified hackers accessed the DNC’s emails, which WikiLeaks later published.

“If a member is using an application outside of the House infrastructure and the protection … [of] our cybersecurity network, they’re in violation of House policy?” she asked John Ramsey, the House’s information security officer, at the previously unreported appropriations hearing. (For more from the author of “Wasserman Schultz Admits Hill IT Security Violations, Blames House Administrators for Not Stopping Her” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.